Weinberger v. Lensclean Inc.
| Decision Date | 09 November 1993 |
| Citation | 198 A.D.2d 58,603 N.Y.S.2d 148 |
| Parties | Royal WEINBERGER, Plaintiff, v. LENSCLEAN INCORPORATED, etc., et al., Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY, Third-Party Defendant-Appellant. Royal WEINBERGER, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. LENSCLEAN INCORPORATED, etc., et al., Defendants-Appellants. . |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Before ROSENBERGER, J.P., and WALLACH, KUPFERMAN, ASCH and KASSAL, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered on or about May 15, 1992 which, to the extent appealed from, denied third party defendant Aetna's motion for summary judgment to dismiss the third party complaint, and the order, same court and Justice, entered February 3, 1993, which, inter alia, denied defendants' motion to renew a November 4, 1992 order which, after an in camera inspection, ordered plaintiff to produce his psychiatric records in redacted form, and with respect to that portion of the May 15, 1992 order which denied defendants' motion to depose plaintiff's psychiatrist, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
The IAS court properly denied defendants' motion to depose plaintiff's psychiatrist. In this case, the psychiatric report submitted by plaintiff's treating physician is sufficient to meet the requisites of CPLR 3101(d)(1) by providing a clear idea of the nature of the testimony, as well as some basis for the diagnosis. In addition, defendants have failed to demonstrate any "special circumstances" which would support their request to depose plaintiff's treating physician (CPLR § 3101[d][1][iii].
With respect to the third-party defendant's insurer's motion to dismiss the third party complaint, the IAS court properly determined that the insurer failed to meet its burden of proving that the exclusionary provision, strictly and narrowly construed, applied in this case, and that it is subject to no other reasonable interpretation (Seaboard Sur. Co. v. Gillette Co., 64 N.Y.2d 304, 311, 486 N.Y.S.2d 873, 476 N.E.2d 272). Therefore, there was no basis to dismiss the third-party claim that, inter alia, the insurer is required to defend.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hallahan v. Ashland Chemical Co.
...to permit an oral examination before trial of a party's expert in the absence of special circumstances (see, Weinberger v. Lensclean Inc., 198 A.D.2d 58, 603 N.Y.S.2d 148; King v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 198 A.D.2d 748, 604 N.Y.S.2d 302). Special circumstances permitting a depositio......
-
K. S. v. Incorporated Village of Garden City
...238 A.D.2d 558, 657 N.Y.S.2d 70; King Elec. v. American Natl. Fire Ins. Co., 232 A.D.2d 273, 648 N.Y.S.2d 302; Weinberger v. Lensclean Inc., 198 A.D.2d 58, 603 N.Y.S.2d 148). ROSENBLATT, J.P., and O'BRIEN, THOMPSON, FRIEDMANN and GOLDSTEIN, JJ., ...
-
Brooks v. City of New York
...injuries. Such a request is impermissible, absent the required showing of special circumstances (Weinberger v. Lensclean Inc., 198 A.D.2d 58, 59, 603 N.Y.S.2d 148 [1st Dept.1993] Defendant is correct that a motion brought pursuant to CPLR 2304 must be made promptly. Promptly is interpreted ......
-
Alvin N. v. Admin. for Children's Servs. (In re Aliyah N.)
...Melendez v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of N.Y. , 277 A.D.2d 64, 717 N.Y.S.2d 518 [1st Dept. 2000] ; Weinberger v. Lensclean Inc. , 198 A.D.2d 58, 59, 603 N.Y.S.2d 148 [1st Dept. 1993] ...